Honor the assault rifle law

Our opinion: Limited as its effect with will be, the New York SAFE Act’s assault weapon registration requirement is part of necessary efforts to reduce gun violence.

If you own an assault rifle, the deadline is here to either register it, modify it, or get rid of it properly.

You may see this as an outrageous violation of your constitutional rights, or even, some say, your God-given rights. Others see it as a reasonable step to keep particularly deadly weapons out of the hands of people who might use them in crimes, including murderous rampages on whole groups of innocent people.

The mandate to register assault weapons by April 15 is part of the New York Secure Ammunition Firearms Enforcement Act, or SAFE Act, passed in the aftermath of the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. In addition to requiring registration of assault rifles, the law bans possession of “high-capacity magazines,” and requires ammunition dealers to do background checks. Designated mental health professionals who believe a patient made a credible threat of harming others are now expected to report it.

Almost immediately, the law drew stiff opposition. Now guns rights activists continue to stage protests; one at the state Capitol this month drew 3,000 gun enthusiasts. Participants were urged to ignore the gun registration requirement, even though doing so constitutes a misdemeanor. Police have flexibility to determine of the failure to register was unintentional and, if so, give the owner 30 days to comply.

Enforcement is the rub here. It’s easy to obtain firearms and ammunition banned in New York by simply driving to other states. Add to that the open defiance of the law among some law enforcement officials, and one has to wonder if it’s altogether worth it.

The law’s biggest beneficiaries may be police. Consider the example of police responding to a call about a distraught individual, in which a quick check reveals there is an assault rifle in the household. That information could help save lives.

But it’s also a reality that one state acting on its own can have only limited impact. What’s really needed is a sensible national gun policy, starting with laws to better regulate interstate sale of firearms and ammunition, and reenactment of the federal assault weapons ban. Passed in 1994 after a spate of deadly attacks, the ban measurably reduced violent assaults with such weapons. Then, after ten years, Congress let it lapse, a status enforced by the industry-funded lobbying of the National Rifle Association.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo takes the brunt of criticism for pushing through the SAFE Act. Yet a recent Siena College poll shows 63 percent of voters support the firearms legislation, compared with 32 percent opposing it — about the same as it was right after the law was passed in 2013.

Gov. Cuomo spent considerable political capital in pushing to enact this important gun control legislation, but it was absolutely the right thing to do, even with its shortcomings.We can’t help but note that with the deadline approaching, a new lawsuit challenging the act was filed, this one conjuring visions of house-by-house searches and confiscations. Please. Let’s get real: The law is neither the grand solution that the governor and other supporters claim nor the threat to liberty that many anti-gun control voices make it out to be. It’s a modest step to make New York a little safer.

We look to responsible gun owners to take that step now, and hope for smart national action someday soon.

61 Responses

“The law’s biggest beneficiaries may be police. Consider the example of police responding to a call about a distraught individual, in which a quick check reveals there is an assault rifle in the household. That information could help save lives.”

This has to be the most ridiculous thing I have heard yet concerning this law. By this logic, a non-assault rifle is not a problem even though it has the same performance and capabilities. Sorry you people are delusional if you think this law will stop anything. It is already illegal to shoot other people, if our criminal doesn’t care about that law what makes anyone think they will care about this law.

This law was hastily passed without input from the citizens by a bunch of clueless nit wits who know nothing abut guns. We don’t judge people by the color of their skin or the way they look. Why do that with guns?

Your editorial essentially pleads for citizens to acknowledge their duty and subservience to The Law, rather than stand as citizens in defiance of what is, by your own admission, a law borne out of arrogance (Cuomo’s), corruption (Sheldon Silver’s Assembly, the most corrupt legislative body in America by most reckonings), and cowardice (Skelos, cowering over the thought that Cuomo will pull the plug on the IDC and cost him his car & driver). America was founded on citizens defying unjust and corrupt authority, and it will stand or fall on the continued willingness of citizens to do what they believe is right.

And you think the Sienna polls are accurate? Where did there survey take place in another liberal town? I look forward to the day when the first amendment “Freedom of Speech” is shut down but the government and see how fast the newspapers rally to fight that. Or is it another one of those “it won’t happen to us”

By the way I don’t own any assault rifles but am tired of our government ramming feel good laws down our throat when they don’t even enforce what is already on the books.

I have NO assault weapons. But I feel anyone that registers is only asking for confiscation!. Besides that ASSAULT is an ACT Not a Thing. a Gun is a TOOL! it’s the person commiting the ACT of Assault that is the problem. COUMO’S GOTTA GO!

A little safer how? Because criminals have a great track record of obeying the law? Do you think the citizens of the City of Albany will register their “Assault Rifles” and/or illegal handguns? Good luck with your registrations….

Really? That’s a pretty compelling statement if true, it’s a shame it’s actually the opposite of what really happened. If you’re going to make a statement as bold as that, you really need to provide some sort of evidence. I realize this is an opinion piece, and the TU editorial board is Cuomo’s personal Pravda, but it makes you look even more like an administration shill that is already assumed.

Your premise that law abiding citizens should follow unconstitutional laws blindly is the mind set of Liberal sheep.

By your standards, Rosa parks should have quietly sat in the back of the bus, Susan B. Anthony should have stayed on her front porch sipping lemonade, Dr. Martin Luther King should have found another line of work, and Clive Bundy should have handed the keys to his ranch to the BLM last weekend……

If only our Governor was wise enough to realize wide spread opposition may actually be indicative of an actual problem, and was able to rein in his “I am the ruler” ego, he could have advanced his political stature, by simply acknowledging the opposition’s concerns and holding public discussions about “possible” revisions.

Those discussions may well have underlined the wisdom of those SAFE provisions that actually make sense, and provide a workable exit from those provisions, and there most certainly are some, that simply went too far and do precious little to accomplishing anything rational, or worthwhile.

Sandy Hook was a terrible tragedy, triggering understandable emotional responses, some of which have proven to be misguided, and produced some excesses, that seen in the light of hard consideration “may” be worthy of adjustment.

The issue is NOT about “needing 8 bullets to hunt a deer” and never has been, and although some speech writer thought that a great attention grabbing line, it may have worked for the moment, but thereafter has been a colossal backfire. Lest we forget, The harsh reality remains that the urban areas of NYC an other major metropolitan areas in NYS, are often completely different environments from each other, and those vast expanses between Cities, often referenced as “Upstate”.

Individual communities within the State have their own, local government and the ability to tailor laws to fit their individual circumstance. How many times must we be shown that “One size NEVER EVER fits all” equally as well.

The line between being confidently resolute and being a stubborn fool, is not that thin, and when crossed can leave a lasting, and destructive, impression that is difficult to reverse. Difficult, but not impossible if approached from a perspective of recognizing overreach, and being willing to correct mistakes.

The primary benefit in allowing different perspectives to be thoroughly discussed, debated and considered, is that the very best solutions usually lay somewhere between the opposite extremes, and the people are far more likely to accept and abide by them.

“Passed in 1994 after a spate of deadly attacks, the ban measurably reduced violent assaults with such weapons” No it didnt. Congress let it lapse and did not renew because even the FBI said it had little to no impact on crime. Very few shootings are committed with rifles of any kind. The most common used weapons in assualts and murders arent even firearms- its fists and bats.

“Consider the example of police responding to a call about a distraught individual, in which a quick check reveals there is an assault rifle in the household. That information could help save lives” This is plain foolish. Last time I checked, a pistol grip doesnt make a 5.56 round more deadly than a 30-06 from a wood stocked rifled. These laws are targeting superficial cosmetic features because arogant politicians who are ignorant about guns are afraid of black guns. Such a registry doenst tell an officer anything since the house could still contain a far more dangerous rifle that doenst meet the dumb defintion of ‘assault weapon’ So officers will still have to assume their may be guns in the house no matter what the registry says.

NOTHING IN THIS LAW WOULD PREVENT A SHOOTING LIKE SANDY HOOK FROM HAPPENING IN NY! It was even stated in the legislative debate (what little occured) that it wouldnt accomplish such a goal.

“Others see it as a reasonable step to keep particularly deadly weapons out of the hands of people who might use them in crimes, including murderous rampages on whole groups of innocent people.”

SAFE Act will have very little public benefit in keeping innocents safe. Why do leftist chumps insist in their delusions that they know how criminals operate? Nothing is as nauseauting as listening (or reading, in this case) some clueless, ignorant, yet wretchedly arrogant and self-absorbed leftist propound on topics. It merely shows off their ignorance, and yes, stupidity.

SAFE Act has only one purpose; to confiscate defensive weapons from law-abiding citizens so that arrogant, self-absorbed, power-crazed leftist loonies won’t feel threatened as they work to enslave rest of us in their dystopian, nightmare vision.

” Please. Let’s get real: The law is neither the grand solution that the governor and other supporters claim nor the threat to liberty that many anti-gun control voices make it out to be.”

Actually, it will ultimately be up to the Supreme Court to decide. Administration shills take note, the Supremes have been strongly pro 2A, undoing one piece of statist anti-2A legislation after another in recent years.

Another note,

” The law’s biggest beneficiaries may be police. Consider the example of police responding to a call about a distraught individual, in which a quick check reveals there is an assault rifle in the household. That information could help save lives.”

If that’s even remotely true, then why are all the law enforcement unions around the State so fundamentally opposed to the SAFE Act, telling their members not to enforce it?

Why isn’t Cuomo going after blunt objects and knives? They’re responsible for many times the deaths of ‘assault weapons’?

A ‘distraught individual’ who is prone to committing violent crime probably isn’t going to register his or her ‘assault weapon’ in the first place. Law Enforcement will know exactly as much about this person as they did before SAFE. The ONLY use for the registry is as the first step to confiscation, history shows.

This is stupid, feel good legislation. The only consolation that we can take at this point is that Cuomo has permanently ruined his chance at higher office with this fascist impluse.

What is really needed is a change in the collective mindset and with that a drastic reduction in any kind of firearms. Facts collected throughout the past decades clearly show that those places that reduce gun ownership have less gun related crime and noticeably less homicides. I fail to understand why so many still cling to their guns although evidence shows that this will make it much more likely for them to get killed? That aside, how many more have to be shot by law-abiding citizens turned into lunatics that shoot children and adults? Yes, there is still the case where a knife wielding idiot enters a school, but as bad as that recent example was, nobody died. Having access to a gun would have turned this into a bigger tragedy as we could all witness in Newtown, CT. That tragedy was caused by gun-loving citizens who insisted on their right to firearms and in the end nothing good came from it.
I also fail to understand how individuals owning firearms constitute a “well-regulated militia” and how they provide “security of a free state”. How do these unorganized individuals act as a militia and how would they defend the freedom of the state? Do they have a secret communications network? A shadow line of command? And why are they outraged when they get “well-regulated” as is the case with the NY SAFE Act?
Additionally, why is a law that was crafted over 200 years ago considered to be fully applicable today? Is it really reasonable to completely ignore how the world changed in the past two centuries? Are we still subject to be attacked by the English? Alone the technology of firearms changed dramatically since then. Back then single shot rifles were the norm and they had really bad accuracy and rather limited reach. Yes, they were lethal, but they were craptastic devices compared to the high power, multi-shot rifles with incredible accuracy available today.

We should work towards legislation that reduces the amount of privately owned firearms to an absolute minimum. Those who can reasonably explain why they need a firearm should still be allowed to have one (yes, one, not dozens…unless they are made unusable as collectibles). Everything else should stay in the hands of the truly well-regulated militia that we already have in place today: local and state police forces.

“We don’t judge people by the color of their skin or the way they look. Why do that with guns?” Uh, maybe, because the color of someone’s skin or the way they look can’t KILL somebody else…

“Your editorial essentially pleads for citizens to acknowledge their duty and subservience to The Law… America was founded on citizens defying unjust and corrupt authority…” What other issues do you support to the extent that you encourage people to break the law with regard to those issues? Maybe, vehicle speed limits – or marijuana/drug use… Or is it just this one issue for you?

“And you think the Sienna polls are accurate?” Deny the facts and ignore reality – okkk…

Argue the semanatics of the word “assault”… The most benign “argument” here but if you’re worrying about the definition of a word in all this, you’re missing the point…

Paint the picture of citizens armed rifles being capable of fighting off a modern army that is armed with modern weapons, e.g., RPGs, armored vehicles, infrared/night vision, – did I mention jets with JDAMS and laser-guided everything??? Quaint picture, but completely unrealistic.

“Passed in 1994 after a spate of deadly attacks, the ban measurably reduced violent assaults with such weapons.”

Really? Everything I’ve read, including government reports, show that the 94 ban didn’t have any measurable effect on crime.

“It’s easy to obtain firearms and ammunition banned in New York by simply driving to other states.”

You do realize that buying a firearm from a private individual in another state without a background check is already illegal, right? If people were inclined to do it before, the SAFE Act won’t stop them. It’s against federal law and has been for quite some time. You can’t legally walk into a gun store in PA and buy an “assault weapon” either. It’s against federal law to buy a gun in one state that is illegal in yours.

“Sienna poll” LOL!!! So inaccurate it’s used by all the corrupt politicians!

You’re clearly a Cuomo fanboy…probably paid as well to spew this tripe. Take your prattle elsewhere….we’re not interested. The people of this state will speak loud and clearly through the only poll that matters.

One could say that the NY SAFE act is more about corrupt politicians doing what they please in the wee hours with no input from even an Albany beat cop and voting on something they had no time to read and digest fully. A message of necessity is big storm is coming up the eastern seaboard act now! What next; your favourite Widget gets banned along with your Flintlock Fointwinder. I think we all know this was in some politicians safe. Just waiting to be discovered at an opportune time. Registration is followed by Confiscation. Exlimey

The biggest beneficiaries are the government (as we can’t protect ourselves against them) and criminals (who own the largest percentage of assault rifles). So now the innocent can’t protect themselves and family from being overrun by government or by vicious crime. Thanks Cuomo!!!

“Consider the example of police responding to a call about a distraught individual, in which a quick check reveals there is an assault rifle in the household. That information could help save lives.”

These rifles do not pose a disproportionally high threat to law enforcement officers. The so called “Assault Weapons Ban” expired years ago, and when it did citizen disarmament zealots, their organizations, and their media allies predicted that number of law enforcement killed by gunshot wounds would increase. The opposite happened, and 2013 ended up being the safest year for law enforcement since 1887.

The inconvenient fact is that in 2011, Aks, ARs, Uzis and all other semi-auto “Assault Weapons” as well as all other rifles accounted for 323 murders nationwide even with those so called “High capacity magazines.” That is less than three percent of all homicides and comes to less than one homicide a day. Not only does that mean that no one in you state will be murdered by an “Assault Weapon” or any other rifle this month but likely not next month, or even the month after that.

By contrast, over five times the number of murders, 1,649, were with knives or cutting instruments, over two and a quarter the numbers of murders, 728, were with hands, fists, feet, etc, and more murders, 496, were committed using blunt objects like clubs, hammers, baseball bats, etc. A person is far more likely to be murdered with a weapon other than a weapon other than a firearm than one of those so called “Assault Weapons” or any other rifle.

Additionally, a study funded by the Department of Justice concluded, “Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.”

Of course, citizen disarmament zealots and organizations ignore these inconvenient facts because their objective is to frighten the public into banning all civilian firearms one class of weapon at a time.

The SAFE act is a slap in the face to reasonable gun owners, and it is a disgrace to State of New York.

it was legal to throw japanese and italian americans into internment camps back during world war 2, it doesn’t make it a justified law, Neither is this, no one is going to register their firearms, I even have cop friends who laugh at the legislators who think people will do this, even they have so called ‘assault weapons’ that they will NOT be registering as well.

unconstitutional laws aren’t laws to begin with, the constitution is the highest law in the land, if you dont like it, you’re welcome to leave.

Yeaaaaa, because criminals are going to register their already illgeal weapons right? Kids getting shot in NYC still when guns are already banned. Guns arent the problem, its people. When will you fools get it through your thick skulls?

How is the NY SAFE Act “a reasonable step to keep particularly deadly weapons out of the hands of people who might use them in crimes, including murderous rampages on whole groups of innocent people.”? How does knowing where so called ” assault weapons” are located keeping them out of the hands of lunatics? How does knowing where they are stop crime? I’m sure I’m not the only one hearing crickets right now waiting for a logical answer. All this Act does is make those of you compelled to do ” something” make you feel better while making easier victims for criminals. After recent tragedies I’m sure your next move is banning assault knives. Look across the muddy pond and see how effective either are. The SAFE Act is as useless as the Government that enacted it and the bloggers that keep applauding and supporting it….